Posted on 06/07/2009 3:27:11 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Our Creator placed enough discontinuity in just the right places, showing us that no natural process could have generated such a diverse creation...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
To read later.
“I’m still not following you. I could never stop atheists from voting, nor would I want to.”
Put your shirt back on, that was the point but at times my humor is subtle, very subtle. You kinda gotta wait for it.
Ooops! I didn’t realize what you were referring to...I finally went back and reread #15. Boy do I feel silly...it’s not like you didn’t give me a hint!
I have noticed a common denominator with nearly all creationists that I have encountered. That is they are full of hyperbole, and have absolute proof that will discredit the theory of evolution. That is until they are directly challenged, and then they start with the name-calling, changing the subject, and avoidance
It is not about me, or my self-worth. I have no problems with that. It is about you supporting this “mountain of evidence” that you claim to have, and you supporting your assertion in this thread that you “eat evos for lunch”.
The challenge in that link is simple; it is to name a gene that shows no sign of an evolutionary origin.
The specifics are in the link.
Looking forward to your prompt reply
All I know is you are chicken to post your own threads. I post my own Creation and ID threads almost every day. What’s stopping you?
1-5: Basic genetics, nothing to do with evolution,
6: These recombination’s and errors produce unsuccessful offspring at best, if they produce anything.
Where is your evidence for “recombination’s (sic)and errors produc[ing] a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence?” This is nothing but an unsupportable conclusion.
Remember, we’re talking about speciation. And you’re demanding evidence of me. Where’s your evidence of any species “evolving into” another species? There is no evidence whatsoever. Just because all life forms begin from a similar template does not prove they evolved from a common ancestor. If anything it proves they were created by an intelligent designer. By the way, ever wonder were the information contained in those DNA molecules came from? Only information can produce information. It can’t “evolve” from nothing.
13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
More conclusions without evidence - approaching tautology: bio-diversity happened because of bio-diversity.
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
Again another unsupported conclusion. How did your points 1-13 BECOME sufficient to explain anything, much less the diversity within and similarities between the form of life observed on earth-at any time? How do your points 1-13 explain the Cambrian Explosion when virtually all of the phyla came into existence over a period of 70 million years. You’re demanding evidence from me. Where’s your evidence? What you have here is a page out of a high school biology textbook, which is so out of date it is embarrassing. It reminds me of the textbook graphic of the different levels of embryonic and fetal development. It turned out to be a complete hoax just like Piltdown Man. Both are in high school textbooks to this day.
The core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”
This is YOUR opinion; also a rhetorical device used by evolution apologists to deflect the inevitable question: Life evolved HOW and from WHAT? You establish YOUR standards for this discussion by excluding opinions, yet you end with YOUR opinion attempting to pin me down as to what’s relevant to this discussion. The question of origins is THE question in an analysis of the validity of evolution. Knowledge about, “the orignins of life on earth” is THE core of evolutionary theory. If you posit a theory of evolution of diversity of species by natural selection through “variation” of genetic information, you must be able to extrapolate backwards to the origin of life to have a viable, testable theory. In fact that’s the whole idea: Z came from Y, which came from X, and so forth. Sooner or later you’re going to be faced with the question of, “Where’s the soup?”
I hate to break this off, but I have to retire in order to get up in time tomorrow to spend a couple of hours with the Creator.
“I beg to differ. The reason why the biblical creationists are on the MSM/ATHEIST/OLD EARTH COMPRISER radar screen is because they all know that biblical creationists are the MAIN ENEMY of the wisdom of this world.”
And I would beg to differ with you. I’d say the MAIN ENEMEY of the wisdom of this world is liberals.
It is not an eternity as point number 14 that I posted to you states:
“Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.”
My statement about the furor over the Big Bang was merely an aside. Look again at my answer: How did anything in your points 1-13 BECOME sufficient to explain anything, much less the bio-diversty that exists within any time frame? I think you are well-meaning and sincere, but you really should check out reasonstobelieve.org. I like to say that for bio-diversity to be explained by evolution, the entire planet would be knee-deep in the bones of transitional critters.
Here we go again with the name-calling, and avoidance.
So you have no answer to the question?
Looks like you have failed to support your assertion that you “eat evos for lunch”
Well it is time for bed,
Goodnight, and may God bless you and yours, and God bless America.
Thanks for the ping!
That’s why I included old earth compromisers on the list.
Still waiting for you to post that list on your own thread, Ira. Trust me, if you post the list, we will come.
As usual, misdirection and avoidance, and as far as the origin of life:
Darwin himself says, in the Origin of Species, “It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).
The study of the origins of life is Abiogenesis, evolution is the study of how life has changed since its inception. They are separate areas of scientific studies.
If you do not understand this basic fact then it is obvious that you have a complete misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution actually is.
Among all that misdirection,and misconceptions I did not see any supporting evidence.
“(And for the record, I think “Creation Science” is hogwash and I’ll match my conservatism, my true, pro-US-constitution, pro-America, pro-FreeMarket, pro-FreeSpeech, pro-2ndAmendment conservatism against any so-called Christians pushing this Creationist crap.)” [excerpt]Oh boy...
“On this board legitimate science is pushed into “CHAT”. But this blog-spam is permitted precedence as “NEWS”.” [excerpt]FYI.
The truth (in this case, evolution being a bunch of BS) makes it hard to vote for conservatives?? Care to explain why that might be?
At last! Something on which we agree!
Hi Godsgutguns! Its been a while. Hows the hammer hangin?
[[The truth (in this case, evolution being a bunch of BS) makes it hard to vote for conservatives?? Care to explain why that might be?]]
What he meant was that those that are convinced Macroevolution is real and would never ceede anything, are still going to vote Democrat, but blame their vote on Conservatives- playing both sides of the fence “We’re voting democrat, but it’s only because those evil conservatives won’t agree with us that nature violated several key scientific principles and that nature created life out of goo”
Evolution/Darwinism has been blamed (or given credit for, depending on which side someone is on) for every form of government and economics under the sun.
Darwinism was actually banned by both the Nazis and the Communists. Communists banned Darwinism as being too analogous to Adam Smith’s theories (and in fact both Darwin and Smith used similar metaphors for how their theories work). And Marx and Engels were writing about Communism long before Darwin published his theory.
How anyone can base any form of gov or economics on a theory of how species originate is beyond me. Species form by differential reproduction within a population, and therefore we should not have the right to bear arms or to vote - beats me how that works.
“It is the foundation of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, in fact, all totalitarianism.”
—That’s interesting, considering there’s been far less totalitarianism since Darwin than before. And if you look around the world today, the places that have the rights you desire and the least totalitarianism are those very places where evolution is most popular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.